Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storm (US 20100105464) in view of Shoemake (US 20140359647)
In claim 11, Storm discloses
Receiving data from a sporting event upon which wagers can be placed on actions occurring during the live sporting event (paragraph 101, “general game information (e.g. team names, player rosters, start time, etc.) from a data feed or other source”)
Providing one or more areas for selecting a portion of the video feed of the live sporting event (paragraph 104, the interface is provided on video feed of the live sporting event)
Displaying, on the device, elements of the sporting event in the selected portion of the video feed of the live sporting event, wherein available data from the sporting event are dependent upon elements of the live sporting event displayed on the device in the selected portion of the video feed of the live sporting event (paragraph 104, wagering data is displayed on the portion of the video feed, and it is dependent upon the player being touched, for example “a user may touch the image of Barry Bonds (or other image or icon) to trigger the betting interface overlay that enables the user to select and place a specific bet concerning Barry’s at bat”)
Storm fails to disclose that the portion of the video feed is based on one or more of character recognition data and facial recognition data to identify elements within the video feed of the live sporting event, however the location of “Barry Bonds” is used for selection, and Shoemake discloses using biometric/physiological recognition software to identify specific people within a video feed (paragraph 153), this would teach the invention as described by Storm with identifying Barry bonds (and/or other players) using the identification software of Shoemake. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Storm with Shoemake in order to allow for the specific players to be more easily identified by the software.
In claim 12, Storm discloses triggering a selection module based on identified elements of the selected portion of the video feed of the sporting event (paragraph 104, selection of Barry Bonds)
In claim 13, Storm discloses the sensor data comprises physiological data (as the sensors are inputs, it would be data relating to movement of the user for touching the button)
In claim 14, Storm discloses displaying one or more menus based on the selected portion of the video feed on the sporting event (paragraph 104, the BRI of “menu” is taught by the overlay of Storm)
In claim 15, Storm discloses displaying historical data related to the identified elements based on the selected portion of the video feed on the sporting event (paragraph 97, the data is determined prior to the start of the game, thus making it historical data under the BRI)
Claim(s) 16-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storm in view of Lee (US 20190079717)
In claim 16, Storm discloses
A first device having a first display (paragraph 132 discloses multiple user devices as well as a display)
A second device having a second display (paragraph 132)
A broadcast of a live sporting event (paragraph 104)
A wagering network (paragraph 70, as the network is allowing for wagering, it is a wagering network)
Wherein the wagering network provides one or more wagers on one or more outcomes of actions inside of the live sporting event (paragraph 102)
The device controls an integrated display of data associated with the one or more wagers and the broadcast of the live sporting event on the display device (paragraphs 103, 104)
The data associated with the one or more wagers is displayed on the second device and (paragraph 104)
The data associated with the one or more wagers is related to one or more elements of the live sporting event and is overlaid on one or more corresponding elements in the live sporting event, or the data associated with the one or more wagers is displayed at a location on a game play area that is correlated to or determined by artificial intelligence and or machine learning, one or more locations relevant to the one or more wagers (It is noted by examiner that this is a Markush group, and thus only 1 of the limitations must be taught to teach the invention as claimed. In this case, paragraph 104 discloses “data associated with the one or more wagers is related to one or more elements of the live sporting event” as the data is related to Barry Bonds who is being displayed, “and is overlaid on one or more corresponding elements in the live sporting event”, as paragraph 104 discloses an “interface overlay”)
Storm fails to disclose that the first device controls display on the second display of the second device, however Lee discloses controlling a second display based on user input on the first display (paragraph 315). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Storm with Lee in order to allow for a preferred set of devices to be used by the operator, such as for improved viewing.
In claim 17, Storm discloses the first and second device being communicatively paired (figure 1 shows 10b and 10d-n being communicatively coupled to one another, further paragraph 51. Alternatively, paragraph 42 discloses a single device may instead provide the functionality over multiple devices)
In claim 18, Lee discloses for a display module to display the data associated with the one or more wagers upon a successful pairing of the first device to the second device (these two devices would need to be paired in order for the invention to operate)
In claim 19, Storm discloses the data associated with the one or more wagers is displayed in a ribbon on the second device (applicant provides no limiting factors for what a “ribbon” entails, as such the language has very minimal patentable weight, as such, paragraph 104 teaches this limitation as the BRI of ribbon is taught by the overlay of Storm)
In claim 20 Storm discloses a display module is triggered as a result of an input on the first device (paragraph 104)
In claim 21, Lee discloses inputs on the first display control one or more of the display of the data associated with the one or more wagers on the second device and locations of display of the data associated with the one or more wagers (paragraph 315)
In claim 22, Storm discloses wagering module configured to provide wagering activity on the live sporting event in real time (paragraph 104)
In claim 23, Storm discloses the wagering module is coupled to the wagering network and facilitates placing wagers on the mobile device (paragraph 70, 102)
In claim 24, Storm discloses the first device is communicatively paired to a set top box (it is noted by examiner that applicant has provided no limitations of what is required of a set top box, as such the BRI can include whatever device provides television. As a live feed is provided in paragraphs 103-104, this teaches on the limitation as claimed)
Claim(s) 25-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storm in view of Schwartz (US 20200234543)
In claim 25, Storm discloses
Retrieving at least one active live event upon which probabilistic outcomes can be determined on actions occurring during that live event (paragraph 101, “general game information (e.g. team names, player rosters, start time, etc.) from a data feed or other source”, as well as “stream of real time game information”, and paragraph 103-104 which discloses the live event of Barry Bonds coming up to bat)
Presenting at least one probabilistic outcome on an action occurring during of the live event, Selecting at least one player or object in an area of play inside the live event for providing at least one probabilistic outcome and providing at least one a probabilistic outcome on the selection (paragraph 104, users are given the opportunity to place a bet on Barry Bonds’s at bat, and may select the outcome, which is the selected player of Barry Bonds)
Storm fails to disclose the probabilistic outcome determined by artificial intelligence and/or machine learning, however Schwartz discloses use of machine learning for determining a probabilistic outcome (paragraph 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Storm with Schwartz in order to allow for improved real time modification of odds.
In claim 26, Storm discloses triggering the presenting of at least one probabilistic outcome on an occurring during of the live event through detection of movement of at least one player inside the live event (paragraphs 103-104, Barry Bonds is beginning an at bat, which is movement of the player)
In claim 27, Storm discloses the at least one player or object who is the basis for the probabilistic outcome is at least one or more players or objects selected from a predetermined group of players or outcomes (it would be the players of the game of the live feed)
In claim 28, Storm discloses the predetermined group of players or objects is based on the type of live events (Storm discloses a player taking an at bat during the game, which would mean that it is based on the type of live event being shown)
In claim 29, Storm discloses the determination of whether a probabilistic outcome was successful is based on a difference between the actual path taken and the path wager, wherein the path wager is successful if the difference between the actual path taken and the path wager is less than a threshold (it is noted by examiner that no particulars of a “path wager” is described. Paragraph 104 discloses betting that Bonds will hit a single, which would be a particular path that the ball takes wherein the ball is hit into play, not caught by the opposing team’s defenders, and then the ball does not reach the glove of a defender touching first base before Barry Bonds reaches first base. The wager is paid off if this path is taken, and otherwise is not paid off)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amended claim language of claim 11 overcomes the previous art rejection, however a new rejection is made in view of Shoemake as set forth above.
Applicant’s amended claim language of claim 16 overcomes the previous art rejection, however a new rejection is made in view of Lee as set forth above.
It is noted by examiner that independent claim 25 has not been amended nor argued by applicant, as such the rejection has not been changed and no response is deemed necessary.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS HAYNES HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS H HENRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights